Talk:FileNet

Version History
If someone is willing, I'd really appreciarte a verson history. I am researchig a product called IBM FileNet CE. I think "CE" is the version but I'm not sure. Stephen Charles Thompson (talk) 22:20, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Another point of view
While I am not sure about the label "eminently notable", I do think there is some importance to FileNet's early impact. (Fair warning: I worked at FileNet from 1985-1992.) FileNet owned a segment of the application space, because - within that domain - they did a markedly better job than their competitors. This is a slightly awkward position, as a careful potential customer will evaluate you relative to your nearest competitors. If your nearest competitors are not very near - this makes the comparison tricky.

We also ran across an odd sort of engineering blind-spot. Customers could pay off multi-million dollar systems in a year or two(!), from improvements in productivity. Yet an engineer from Xerox told me "we could have built that, but we did not see the point". The use of write-only media struck programmers as unacceptable. Customers felt differently(!).

The "WorkFlo" scripting language was almost an afterthought, but proved critical to FileNet's early success (and proved another blind spot for potential competitors).

Labeling early WorkFlo as "BPM" (Business Process Management) software also strikes me as a bit backwards. Workflow software is fundamentally a pretty simple scripting language, with deep integration into the application, and hooks into the database. The huge practical impact of the scripting language on customers was unexpected. The later invention of a software category to label this sort of use ... seems this deserves later, not up-front mention.

FileNet was also one of the first commercially-deployed client-server systems.

There is a lesson to be learned from FileNet's success. That lesson deserves some sort of mention. But as someone involved, I cannot point to external references, nor claim to be entirely disinterested.

(Also I find the English in the current article rather awkward.)

pbannister (talk) 09:40, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

It's not advertisement
It may have the style of a press release but if you actually read the article is (mostly) factual. I see no "FileNet is the best..." or similarly worded content. Somoe of the links at the bottom are certainly advertisements. They should be removed by whoever put them there.

Adjamir

I also feel it is not like advertisement.

202.54.16.12 14:22, 13 July 2007 (UTC)Abhishek

This is blatant advertising —Preceding unsigned comment added by Liampaulmurphy (talk • contribs)

Do not speedy delete again
FileNet is eminently notable within the huge fields of business process management and content management. We're talking tens of billions of dollars worth of commerce here. If you think the article reads too much like adcopy, then fix the article, but do not delete it. A quick Google search on FileNet will quickly reveal its notability. -- Cyde Weys 02:58, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I second that motion! I appreciate references to software products. Stephen Charles Thompson (talk) 22:18, 31 March 2009 (UTC)